Saturday, November 17, 2012

Funhouse and Lighthouse

I've not seen the Washington Guardian website before, but they claim to be animated by the spirit of Jack Anderson and William Proxmire, names that meant something when I was a kid but not so much now. And they use Split Rock Lighthouse for their logo, so you have to love that.

U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday.

Based on electronic intercepts and human intelligence on the ground, the early briefings after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya identified possible organizers and participants. Most were believed to be from a local Libyan militia group called Ansar al-Sharia that is sympathetic to al-Qaida, the official said, while a handful of others was linked to a direct al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa known as AQIM.

Those briefings also raised the possibility that the attackers may have been inspired both by spontaneous protests across the globe on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and by a desire to seek vengeance for the U.S. killing last summer of a Libyan-born leader of al-Qaida named Abu Yaya al-Libi, the officials said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence matters.

So what was Susan Rice talking about on the Sunday chat shows? That's the question that no one seems willing to answer. Or ask, for that matter. There's a lot more at the link. I'm not sure it clears much up at this point, however. I will say this, though -- it's always made a lot more sense to me that the attack came as a reprisal for killing al-Libi than for any other reason.

10 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Mark,

The election is over, you guys can stop discrediting yourselves over this now. It must be incredibly frustrating, but Conservatives have been botching the response on this ever since Mitt took to the air to grave dance over 4 American bodies one hour after this horrible incident took place.

I understand the thinking here: We got Obama's birth certificate...nada, Fast and Furious was a non-starter, Solyndra only works with the Drudge and Red State crowd. There has to be some scandal we can drum up on this guy.

Well, once again, this ain't it. Darryl Issa is gonna have to keep digging. I wish him luck. Obama seems pretty clean so far. But I doubt that will stop you guys. And I hope I am right about that, because I remember how successful that Clinton impeachment was for you all. Please...bring it.

Money quotes:After the hearings, lawmakers who questioned Petraeus said he testified that the CIA's draft talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn't sure which federal agency deleted it.Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not done for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign."The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. "He completely debunked that idea."

So Rice WAS parroting the talking points that were given to her. I know this doesn't fit with your conspiracy narrative, but it's what appears to have happened.

I have to tell you...I have never really understood what the point of a cover up would be. Obviously, mistakes were made in Benghazi. Obviously, the Obama Administration has some responsibility for that, and some explaining to do. Obviously, this was a tragedy, and we need to learn from it. But this is such a high profile event, and was so botched...what "coverup' could possibly take place? What benefit could the Administration gain? Romney had already discredited himself. I am just not seeing any gain here for Obama.

But I do hope you guys don't let this go. I encourage you all to contact your Congressmen and demand impeachment.

I don't want to impeach Obama over this. Won't happen, anyway. I do think we're owed a better explanation of what happened, though. And while I think the Petraeus events are especially smelly, it's not going to matter.

And I'm not particularly frustrated over it. One of the lessons of this election is that people just don't give a shit about things unless it hits them where they live. And no one I know lives in Benghazi.

I will respond to one thing, which is this statement of yours:

I have to tell you...I have never really understood what the point of a cover up would be. Obviously, mistakes were made in Benghazi. Obviously, the Obama Administration has some responsibility for that, and some explaining to do. Obviously, this was a tragedy, and we need to learn from it. But this is such a high profile event, and was so botched...what "coverup' could possibly take place? What benefit could the Administration gain? Romney had already discredited himself. I am just not seeing any gain here for Obama.

I don't believe that you can't figure that one out. Consider the campaign ads that were running at the time -- "Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive!" The implication was that with the death of bin Laden, al-Qaeda was essentially out of bullets. That turned out to be false and categorically so. It was an important part of their overall campaign messaging. And you know that.

But that's okay -- we have learned that America is more concerned about Twinkies than dead ambassadors, and there's not much I can do about it. To be honest, I'm a lot more exercised about what happened to my friend Jeff than I am about this story right now, because that's a wrong that can still be righted.

Mark and Picklesworth,You said of me "You sound as if politics is just a game to be won."

No. Wrong...not me. You seem to have me confused with your candidate. It was his tasteless and ham-fisted attempt to make political hay out of the tragic deaths of 4 Americans, quite literally while their bodies were still warm, that blew up in his face and sealed the deal on his already moribund campaign. He, and by extension, his Conservative defenders, are the ones who seem to think that politics is just a game to be won.

No. Wrong...not me. You seem to have me confused with your candidate. It was his tasteless and ham-fisted attempt to make political hay out of the tragic deaths of 4 Americans, quite literally while their bodies were still warm, that blew up in his face and sealed the deal on his already moribund campaign. He, and by extension, his Conservative defenders, are the ones who seem to think that politics is just a game to be won.

There's more projection in this statement than at a 20 screen multiplex.